THE PUNDITOCRACY

KEEPING AN EYE ON SYSTEM APOLOGISTS, BELTWAY INSIDERS, AND OTHER COURT SYCOPHANTS

The NewsHour: Not just hot air, but utterly misleading hot air...by the usual insiders.

No one ever held a higher opinion of

Friedman than himself.

I. ON THOMAS FRIEDMAN, the preternaturally self-impressed, ubiquitous and opinionated billionaire* (we think the public is entitled to this rather interesting piece of biographical info) who also happens to serve as a columnist for the New York Times, we offer THE ANTI-THOMAS FRIEDMAN PAGE by Mark Rupert. As a leading evangelist for globalization and Free Trade, Friedman has been among the most outspoken critics of the social movements which have arisen to challenge the neoliberal globalization drive, and which had their coming out party in Seattle in November-December, 1999. In a column entitled Senseless in Seattle (NYT 12/1/1999), Friedman called the protesters "ridiculous," "crazy," "a Noah's ark of flat-earth advocates, protectionist trade unions and yuppies looking for their 1960's fix", who if they only "stopped yapping" long enough to think "would realize that they have been duped by knaves like Pat Buchanan". But let's face it: The problem with malignant frauds and bores like Friedman is not just Friedman alone, but the entire tightly-knit, mutually-reinforcing, adoring, network of fellow apologists for the system, all of whom happen to occupy the pinnacle of American mass communications. Friedman's reach and image as putative savant worth listening to is constantly stoked by Charlie Rose, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert and scores of other opinionmakers, all of whom never seem to praise this paradigm of fatuousness effusively enough. These fellows must be seen for what they are: willing and able enablers and accomplices to the intellectual and political fraud represented by Friedman. Remember that the next time you tune in on any of these shows.

2. ON THE McNEIL-LEHRER REPORT/PBS (aka The NewsHour)—A bad case of misplaced reverence or, much ado about nothing. Few things mirror the toxic stranglehold that "comfortable" liberalism continues to exercise on America than this hugely overrated program, much too often a scandalous fraud in terms of journalism—"respectable" or otherwise—and one which, upon mild scrutiny, easily reveals a glaring amount of laziness and ignorance (not to mention cowardice) on the part of principals and producers. Faithfully reflecting the rump spectrum of opinion that characterizes the MSM and the US Congress, the program endeavors to present "all legitimate viewpoints", as long as they obligingly fall within the center-to-ultraright part of the curve. No real leftists need apply. This piece of legerdemain doesn't seem to upset much of the program's fiercely faithful audience (certainly not the advertisers), which is apparently overwhelmingly composed of similarly self-impressed establishmentarians, by temperament "extremists of the center" who, especially in America, as suggested by historian Greg Dening, seem happy to inhabit a middle ground between fascism and communism in which, ideally, "stable institutions [can] sustain good order and bend to legitimate demands". In real terms, however, the space for "legitimate demands" is almost always determined by the leading beneficiaries of the system's inequities, vitiating any hope that actual, reformative change can occur in a peaceful manner.

We offer two takes on this journalistic sacred cow. One [When Tedium is Totalizing—

The Political Function of PBS, 6.30.05 ] was penned by legendary wit Alexander Cockburn. Satire was never used with better effect and on a more deserving target. [TEDIUM IS TOTALIZING, read it here and here.] The second is a straight exposition by Patrice Greanville of the program's editorial dishonesty, as evidenced by its scandalously narrow choice of opinion on practically every topic, in this case the ascendancy of two African-American politicians, Harold Ford and Barack Obama (both already annointed as "acceptable" by the powers that be). <The Greanville piece is being updated and will be reposted soon.>

IN PREPARATION: Profiles on Gwen Ifill (PBS/NewsHour); Chris Matthews (MSNBC/Hardball); Martin Peretz (The New Republic); Peggy Noonan (Wall Street Journal); Tim Russert (Meet the Press); Lou Dobbs; David Brooks; Pat Buchanan; Joe Klein (TIME-CNN, et al); David Gergen; Michael Crowley (The New Republic); Mike Barnicle (MSNBC), and others.

FRIEDMAN'S MANY-SPLENDORED LIFE

* Friedman's many-splendored life is not exactly a heavily guarded state secret but it is not something the Times or Friedman like to dwell on. Here's what the redoubtable David Sirota has to say on the subject:

I've documented repeatedly how New York Times columnist Tom Friedman parrots the propaganda of Big Money, using his column to legitimize some of the worst, most working-class-persecuting policies this country has seen in the last century - all [the] while bragging on television that he doesn't even bother [to]] read the details of the policies he advocates for. I have always believed Friedman's perspective comes from the bubble he lives in - that is, I have always believed he feels totally at ease shilling for Big Money and attacking workers because from the comfortable confines of the Washington suburbs he lives in and the elite cocktail parties he attends, what Friedman says seems mainstream to him. But I never had any idea how dead on I was about the specific circumstances of Friedman's bubble - and how it potentially explains a lot more than I ever thought.

As the July edition of the Washingtonian Magazine notes, Friedman lives in "a palatial 11,400-square-foot house, now valued at $9.3 million, on a 7½-acre parcel just blocks from I-495 and Bethesda Country Club." He "married into one of the 100 richest families in the country" - the Bucksbaums, whose real-estate Empire is valued at $2.7 billion.

Let's be clear - I'm a capitalist, so I have no problem with people doing well or living well, even Tom Friedman. That said, this does potentially explain an ENORMOUS amount about Friedman's perspective. Far from the objective, regular-guy interpreter of globalization that the D.C. media portrays him to be, Friedman is a member of the elite of the economic elite on the planet Earth. In fact, he's married into such a giant fortune, it's probably more relevant to refer to him as Billionaire Scion Tom Friedman than columnist Tom Friedman, both because that's more descriptive of what he represents, and more important for readers of his work to know so that they know a bit about where he's coming from.

And these comments by readers of the Sirota column which we think is worth including here, as it perfectly mirrors our views on the man:

Friedman's problem is that he is a second-rate thinker who is infatuated with every thought that leaves his lips. He has been wrong in just about everything he has written or prognosticated. And, as you say, he has no concern for the people who have lost jobs because of outsourcing or bad legislation. In fact, you get the feeling that Friedman wouldn't object to a return to sweatshops, child labor, and the repeal of minimum wage since that would make us more competitive with the Chinese.

<...>

For the entire reference, CLICK HERE.